ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS A MEASURE OF ONTOLOGICAL DENSITY: the “ratio of energy consumed to mass of objects” is proportionate to the complexity of an organism: stars are so simple even a leaf, relative to its mass, is more energy efficient, but efficiency carries with it the price of determination: Gurdjieff's Ray of Creation descends from simplex to carbon lattice as the progressive accumulation of ontological law, ontological even in the Heideggerian sense: nervous systems are webs that attract the Ground's teleological investment in /itself/: DEGREES OF MATERIALITY CORRESPOND TO DEGREES OF CARE: the sophistication of bodies compounds rote causality into the inner sense of time and its coemergence with death: a singular Now distended into time and as time: the background stanchion that coincides all at once as Whitehead's principle of valuation, Hegel's dialectical motor, /and/ the universality of the Ideas – or rather, the Idea /is/ universality: in other words, complexity implicates a continuity of self, which, in turn, implicates an otherness (intentionality) which either devours you or is devoured: the potential for liberation is one and the same with the veils of conditioning: genius, according to Weininger, is a studied attunement to this continuity, to the apperceptive “I”, the universality of which becomes the universality of its object: the gods: but immortality is the simple: angels are just a name for the first concrescences of baryon-photon plasma that emerged immediately after the Big Bang: self-replicating plasma structures have been observed on the surfaces of stars, while not qualifying as biological life they certainly conform to Whitehead's definition of an actual entity: a coherence, or unit, of process: the Golden Age was the smoothness of the brain, the solar soul is a jellyfish and METHUSELAH WAS A TREE.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS A MEASURE OF ONTOLOGICAL DENSITY: the “ratio of energy consumed to mass of objects” is...
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
What Duchamp was saying with his urinal was the same thing Hegel was trying to say with the dialectic of Master and Slave: sociopolitical /and/ aesthetic power is constituted by its observers, power is just a function of the matrix of the social relations, just as art is a function of the museum setting: Evola's concept of superiority, on the other hand, does not depend on this kind of fetishistic disavowal, there are things we /don't/ have to psyche ourselves up into seeing as beautiful or sacred, that /demand/ our seeing instead of waiting to be sanctified by it. Hegel and Duchamp describe only the ways that art and power can come into being after the gods have already left us. Or, in other words: complexity alienates us from our original, Edenic consubstantiality with the divine: the reflexive marking of Tradition /as/ Tradition is only possible after it is lost, religion is the sign of our fallenness: or even more to the point, THE IDEA, /AS/ IDEA, IS ONLY THINKABLE AT THE LIP OF NON-BEING: the liberal ideal(ization) of freedom is the depreciation of the classical intellect: before, the gods ate us without our asking, consciousness is only the choice of mouths: from firefly to moth, the soul awakens only to the self-consciousness of its gravity, and it is that awareness that paralyzes its light.
We wrestle not with substances, what Atlantean sorcerers like Descartes and Spinoza desperately need to believe reality is made of to defang Evola's “abyssal play of forces”, but singularities of power/δύναμης: Atlantis represents the repression of thermodynamic game, the high cabal of negentropy: Christ signaled the dawn of the proletarian consciousness as THE REJECTION OF THE INDIFFERENCE OF FORCE: as the rejection of the indifference of genes, selves decoupled from the Aristotelian biological destiny of the tribe and chromosome: humanism hijacks the trogoautoegocrat to have it serve the excrement of its own process: God's ascent from soil to sun up through the esophagus of nature is interrupted by his horror of his own movement in time, and yet, a horror already accounted for in eternity: this paradox is central to understanding the teleology of life: leftism today is a bastard Lemuria, not the joyous entropy of the CCRU, but the guilt-complex of excess order, refracted through a mongrel pseudo-Buddhist hermeneutics of suspicion: an unwillingness to pay the debt of our bodies with beauty: every present is a debt that must be paid, and time is interest: every present must be burned to ash, what isn't survives as memory and future.
S o y boys are failed prototypes of a third sex, the divine androgyne crash landing from the future, polygenderism is (unfortunately) the destiny of all (terrestrial) intelligent species, but gender will fan out into a rainbow before being focused into the laser of the Platonic androgyne again, this time in zero-g, just as the male musculature is only sculpted by its resistance to maternal gravity, the migration into a space will signify our final overcoming of oedipal sexuation: Adam come again as frictionless spider god: the void of the Cartesian cogito makes a buffet out of identity: but it is religious love that best anticipates – and prepares for - this incision of the infinite into nature as the abyss of interiority, PERSONAL IDENTITY IS THE SELF-REGISTRATION OF THE CAUSAL STREAM EXPERIENCED AS TIME: or in other words, the Christian breakthrough is that it is only Love that deserves to be willed infinitely, that CAN be willed infinitely: complexity must explode before it can simplify, and that simplification will look like the repudiation of all that our hands and sweat have built: Nietzsche could only see the ways the body uses the spirit to justify its inherent weakness.
based
Consider: the Hegelian coincidence of opposites: Christian love is ariyan virtue on both an inferior /and/ superior ontological plane: transcendence coincides as the appearance of slavery, just as Weil observed the brilliant preacher is usually as expressive, as animated, as the most mediocre one: that is, “turn the other cheek” can be taken as both an admission of weakness /and/ the most transcendent dignity: similarly, the expansion of space is actually just our misrecognition of the /contraction of causality/: space will “expand” until every system becomes isolated in the void of its own reality: light pollution finishes what suns begin, by blinding their planets to the outside of interstellar space (turn on auto-exposure in Space Engine), civilizations sprout like fungi on the slope of tech-solipsism: a rabbit-duck illusion of cosmic proportions, what you choose to see is the color of your soul, the contraction, Apollonian, the expansion, Dionysus: house parties redshift the stars: the ancients were right, causally, the earth IS at the center of the universe, as you are the center of yours: reality is the mutual becoming of windowless centers embedded in matrices of consensus called the logoi: stars which pressurize nature to evolve eyes, the production of actualities: out of an ocean of potential a universe is hewn into form, and its test, as it is the individual's, is the preservation of youth into the rigidity (complexity) of old age: THE TELOS OF THE UNIVERSE IS THE ALCHEMICAL MARRIAGE OF VOID AND MATTER, POTENTIAL AND ACTUALITY.
Thus, the central problematic of Platonic (meta)physics is how to think the logical coincidence of being and becoming, not how nature participates in the ideal, but how the ideal participates in nature: BECOMING IS THE SYNTHETIC REVELATION OF THE IDEA, the billion vital energies of God, when Christ speaks of becoming a child in the Kingdom he means learning the power to die: to grow the organ that secretes negation like bile: children are innocent precisely as a function of their proximity to death, to the prenatal darkness: the sexuation of puberty signifies our final introduction into the economy of nature, our “taking up” of our genetic responsibility to our substrate: bullying is sometimes a child's first introduction to the periphery, the social snatches him out of the hermetic dryness of the center and into a light that reveals all spiritual blemish: chastity, like fasting, is the withdrawal of our identification with the denser element: our “inside-ness” TO our bodies is our “outside-ness” to NATURE: all (integrated) subjects are in fact exiles from the universe: the more conscious you are, the more your center is distinguished from the periphery, and the more the periphery's forms impede on you as the Platonic universe: genius is fed by this cut: you are either consumed by these objects, or join them: this sensitivity is always an echo of the spiritual progress made in a past life, the six realms are coextensive with samsara, chads are devas precisely in the way physical and sexual dominance becomes an obstacle to enlightenment: what the realms in Buddhism represent is not grades of transcendence but only the modality of attachment: whether basal, or exalted, attachment is attachment: the struggle to reconcile the nothingness of thought (objet petit a) with its libidinal pull opens into that groundlessness which is the wellspring of all art and magic: not just the cthonian/Lovecraftian alterity of the CCRU, but the aeonic alterity of angels, Ezekiel and Job, men wrung to the pith of themselves, the faith of Abraham that felt only the knife and stars: history is the conversion of the living into the goodness of the world, death a fire smoking beauty, the solar soul is as indivisible as the Democritean atom, what is truly bound together can never give the scythe purchase, as Plato's Demiurge admits in Timaeus, because the only way out of complexity is through, into the oneness of the sum: only the genius, the saint, the mystic, makes good on the web of his veins: spirituality is the transcendence indistinguishable from (the appearance of) regression, because the rejection of a universe built on the indifference of violence can only look like the rejection of all that violence can build: for Goethe, color was just light halfway between Night and pleroma, Ra bouncing off a wedding veil of carbon chains: like a bored teenager on vacation, the soul uses the heart to count down until Blast Off (but it forgets who bought the Ticket).
>The fact that ordinary experience is so fundamentally linked with the presupposition of substance confirms Herbert Guenther’s observation (inspired, it would seem, primarily by Heidegger and Dzogchen) that human beings have radically strayed from any sensitive appreciation for their own experience. The ongoing “mind-body” problem of philosophical and cognitive discourse is a good illustration of this experiential and existential insensitivity. The only incontrovertible fact of our predicament is experience itself. Yet many philosophers of mind and cognitive scientists consider “matter” to be the basic given of our experience and see “consciousness” as a problem to be explained in relation to matter. The extreme, almost perverse outcome of this view is the claim that consciousness is an
epiphenomenon of material processes. A phenomenologically sensitive appreciation of our predicament suggests a different conclusion: sentience is the given (though still a mysterious given) while “matter” is a cognitive construction and ontological fallacy.
Tannhäuser
Who are you, based schizo poster?
tight
Indeed
>stars are so simple even a leaf, relative to its mass, is more energy efficient
wouldn't a star have negative energy efficiency according to you? or are you just taking into account the energy it uses inside it's reactions?, what about a vacum? sorry just have to clear this up
I'm confused about this myself. I wasn't aware stars "use" energy at all, so I think you're right
bros... what IS energy?
>Nietzsche could only see the ways the body uses the spirit to justify its inherent weakness.
Now you're getting it. You really ought to read Saint Benedict
Will which is the heart of man, Love is the source of the infinite digested through the lens of what man possess, it becomes limited only in action.
en.wikipedia.org
You're a fucking hack.
The connection between information and mass is old news buddy.
Yep, how the hell did Shannon come up with all of the information theory in 1930's is beyond me. These guys are fucking smart.
What does he say?
bro, you just, dont get schizoposter's description of energy, bro, like, just smoke a J and read it and you'll see that (((bekenstein))) missed the mark
Its mostly monastic stuff, but you'll learn how a Man of God sees the interaction between the Spirit and flesh.
what do i need to read / how much education before i can schizio post like OP
>when Christ speaks of becoming a child in the Kingdom he means learning the power to die
yes. as i see it, all spiritual inquiry is a prolonged education in how to become a body, a speck of dust. a nothing.
if you haven't, you might watch tarkovsky's mirror. very stimulating for someone with an imagination and a little learning.
>How to become a body
Right, exactly, how to become just a body, this jives with an intuition ive had lately that I won't inflict on you because ive hit my schizo posting quota for like the fucking year.
I'll give the Mirror a second shot, wasn't crazy about it the first time. If you haven't seen it, The Tragedy of Man (Hungarian animated film) has a lot, a LOT, to say about these kinds of ideas. Highly recommended.
Kant, Modern dichotomies, and meth.
I don't see a more esoteric interpretation of density really opposed to a scientific one, they're not supposed to be. They complement each other.
>just a body
You're going to have to elaborate.
I guess, how different and superfluous the emotional charge of my inner life feels compared to the world, its silence and indifference. I see spirituality as becoming reconciled to this silence, which is basically death, without actually lobotomizing yourself.
>In Process and Reality, Whitehead famously calls all life a form of “robbery” and “coercion.” The more complex the entity is, the greater the robbery from other entities. Here, we have a basic statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This “robbery” can be thought of in terms of energy density flows passing through a complex system over time measured as erg per seconds per gram (erg s-1 g -1).
>This turns out to be a rough measure of complexity in evolution. The earth’s climasphere, which consists of the atmosphere and oceans, has roughly a hundred times the energy density flow of a typical star or galaxy. Through photosynthesis, plants achieve an energy density flow roughly a thousand times more than that of a star.
>. The human body is sustained by a daily food intake resulting in an energy density flow about 20,000 times more than that of a typical star. Remember that we are comparing the ratio of energy consumed to mass of the objects. So here is another way to think of this. If a human body could be scaled up to the mass of our sun, it would be 20,000 times more luminous (assuming it could obtain enough energy!). The human brain, which consumes about 20 percent of our energy intake while constituting about 2 percent of our body weight, has an energy density flow 150,000 times that of a typical star.
our gods will be fed, and we will glut ourselves upon their excess
based gnosisposter
Man I feel bad for you if you think this is what spirituality is.
You are looking at the same corpse as the one Neitchez feared, only this time it is in you.
wew
It's like I think I'm getting it and in the same time it feels like total bullshit
you never heard of learning to "die before you die"?
If you are equating that with what Saint Paul says about dying everyday then you are far off.
Learning to die is about stripping your interior possessions and instead filling it with God.
That's basically it
The Presence of God is loud, not silent. It will shake your every motive.
i don't think that is true, or at least not for everyone. have you ever been to a quaker meeting?
sometimes grace comes as only the sound of blood moving in your ears
That's what silence does for me. Either way we're just splitting hairs
I don't believe Quakers to understand the full essence of what Christ has done for us, so I'm hesitant to look at them for knowledge on spiritual aspects.
I geuss. Are you OP?
Hey OP you should read Langan, his work will organize your thoughts into an actual system.
Also, the pressure of the Stars, is what Life is to a Baby, and what Love is from God.
i think it may have been you in a thread the other day, asking about whitehead's views on immortality. i wasn't able to answer you to great effect then, largely because, other than in the concept of objective immortality, which is shared by all past occasions--*is* the past--he does not spend much time dwelling on the subject, especially not in process and reality.
but anyway, i've been reading adventures of ideas, and i like to share on here passages that strike me. i just found this one a few moments ago:
>A personal society, itself living and dominantly influencing a living society wider than itself, is the only type of organization which provides occasions of high-grade mentality. Thus in a man, the living body is permeated by living societies of low-grade occasions so far as mentality is concerned. But the whole is coordinated so as to support a personal living society of high-grade occasions. This personal society is the man defined as a person. It is the soul of which Plato spoke.
>How far this soul finds a support for its existence beyond the body is:--another question. The everlasting nature of God, which in a sense is non-temporal and in another sense is temporal, may establish with the soul a peculiarly intense relationship of mutual immanence. Thus in some important sense the existence of the soul may be freed from its complete dependence upon the bodily organization.
i think maybe something of tennyson in this--but he continues:
>But it is to be noticed that the personality of an animal organism may be more or less. It is not a mere question of having a soul or of not having a soul. The question is, How much, if any?
in the same way that a society is a continuous achievement--though lower organizations perdure mostly out of inertia--so too must be the cultivation, growth, and endurance of one's spirit.
langan is a fraud and a charlatan, unfortunately
I don't disagree, but you need a system backed by logic
his 'system' is not backed up by anything. it is *literal* incoherent nonsense.
yeah I actually already have, he's brilliant, I'm surprised you didn't pick up on the marriage of void and matter, etc. bit being basically a rip-off of how he interprets the telos of the universe as the maximization of "telic utility" iirc. unbound telesis is the pleroma, anyways
yes that was me
>in the same way that a society is a continuous achievement--though lower organizations perdure mostly out of inertia--so too must be the cultivation, growth, and endurance of one's spirit.
ay, im reminded of ken wheeler and gurdjieff on this topic, that souls are not born or handed out willy-nilly, they must be actualized
im surprised how explicit he is about the possibility of subjective immortality. also langan's views on the topic: something about the soul "co-existing" in god guarantees its immortality to the degree it realizes this "mutual immanence" as I believe whitehead is calling it
people say this until the cows come home but ive never read critiques of langan that display an understanding of his thought. it doesn't mean anything to me, or that user, sorry
I think assessed you correctly, you are being driven to the Monad of all. Didn't think you'd get there yet but I've missed many of your posts.
What made you realize?
it is difficult to interpret from just this passage what he means, if he means anything precise--which he almost always does. i think the operative term here might be 'intense', as the subjective aim of the universe, as he says earlier in the chapter, is toward intensity and variety. the doctrine of grace is also of supreme importance to him. i imagine a personal immortality, in his system, is characterized by just those instances of the maximal intensity of mutual immanence that characterize grace. think 'moving image of eternity', where the individual is so suffused with the vision of god's glory, that he is sustained forever, regardless of the contingency of his mortal casement.
i dunno, though, i'm mostly just guessing.
something else he says earlier in the chapter is that 'trees are a democracy', which is perfectly sensible in its context but still has me smiling every time i think about it.
as to langan, i may have to revisit him. i found his phraseology totally nauseating, but i have a higher tolerance for bullshit now than however many years ago that was.
Revisit Langan with Whitehead under your belt, you'd be surprised by the resonances, particularly this notion of God as an immanent principle directing the universe towards a greater and greater realization of its potentialities.
Lots of things, shit happens, I read, shit happens, I read. I disappoint God every day tho
OP if thats you, then you made me tear up.
Kind of disjointed this time.
Just need a lot of speed
wojak, can you tell us your ***favorite*** novels?
I fell off with fiction a long time ago. Infinite Jest.
Nice to hear bud
If you're still here, can you recommend any specific works that touch on this?
If you can trudge through esoteric texts and mystic ideas that are meant for the ascetic and monastic then I'd recommened the "Ladder of divine ascent", most of the writing in it is literal but it is absolutely metaphorical as well with elements of deep Christian understanding.
I'd also recommened just general research into the Virtues, as they really are the aspects that ground God and his divinity, with the becoming of Mans rightened soul in relation to morality and justice.
Also to add on, be weary when reading these texts, they will cause any sane happy man to take a deeper and more critical look. A book " the Cloud of unknowing " is actually spooky when it comes to this realm of work, it relies on the reader having a heavy understanding and intimacy with the divine. When people say don't take more than you can handle or else you'll fall, it absolutely applies to books like "the cloud of unknowing" ( which I believe actually relies on an individual's gnosis, and the book in in discusion here might actually be a gnostic work. )
all right I'll check 'em out, thanks
saw this little butthead while i was on my walk earlier. there was a whole flock of robins rooting about in a nearby field, and he was swooping on the few that wandered a little too far from the safety of the group. he had just missed snagging one before he perched here to recollect and plan his next move.
on that same walk i came across a small post-board with this poem put up by one of my neighbors:
I am not resigned to the shutting away of loving hearts in the hard ground.
So it is, and so it will be, for so it has been, time out of mind:
Into the darkness they go, the wise and the lovely. Crowned
With lilies and with laurel they go; but I am not resigned.
Lovers and thinkers, into the earth with you.
Be one with the dull, the indiscriminate dust.
A fragment of what you felt, of what you knew,
A formula, a phrase remains,—but the best is lost.
The answers quick and keen, the honest look, the laughter, the love,—
They are gone. They are gone to feed the roses. Elegant and curled
Is the blossom. Fragrant is the blossom. I know. But I do not approve.
More precious was the light in your eyes than all the roses in the world.
Down, down, down into the darkness of the grave
Gently they go, the beautiful, the tender, the kind;
Quietly they go, the intelligent, the witty, the brave.
I know. But I do not approve. And I am not resigned.
dirge without music by millay. reminded me of this thread.
beautiful poem and beautiful birb. were you the one who posted the Stevenson poem about night in the other thread? just the kind of poetry I like. punchy and raw, gets right to it. based natureposter
Do people have souls?
Not by default, they have to be made
yawn
How?
was wondering when you'd show up
start by learning how to observe your thoughts and learning how to de-program your automatic reactions to things. and read primary sources.
yeah, that was me. glad you appreciated it.
millay does not mince about, for sure, which is probably her strongest attribute.
i would like to recommend to you other, similar poets, but i don't think i really know any that you wouldn't already be familiar with.
go for it, post 'em, it's hard to find but good poetry's out of this world. a lot of these threads are just me sublimating my failed poetic ambitions desu
ive heard he gets a mixed reception from the establishment but I really love Kenneth patchen, won't post the whole poem but god almighty I love these two stanzas:
There is the muffled step in the snow; the stranger;
The crippled wren; the nun; the dancer; the Jesus-wing
Over the walkers in the village; and there are
Many beautiful arms around us and the things we know.
See how those stars tramp over the heavens on their sticks
Of ancient light: with what simplicity that blue
Takes eternity into the quiet cave of God, where Ceasar
And Socrates, like primitive paintings on a wall,
Look, with idiot eyes, on the world where we two are.
i think plath shares in millay's frankness and intensity. she is unfairly maligned on here, largely i think out of the strange fantasies formed around what are taken to be the litereary preferences of their lust's unreachable object--the eternally elusive 'art ho'.
my tastes are very basic. i find poets i like and i read them. they tend to be already well-recognized for their skill. i don't seek out much that is new.
there's another stevens poem that is relevant to the themes of this thread, let me grab it.
i like this a lot. synesthetic, whirls of images and impressions all at once.
from sunday morning:
Why should she give her bounty to the dead?
What is divinity if it can come
Only in silent shadows and in dreams?
Shall she not find in comforts of the sun,
In pungent fruit and bright, green wings, or else
In any balm or beauty of the earth,
Things to be cherished like the thought of heaven?
Divinity must live within herself:
Passions of rain, or moods in falling snow;
Grievings in loneliness, or unsubdued
Elations when the forest blooms; gusty
Emotions on wet roads on autumn nights;
All pleasures and all pains, remembering
The bough of summer and the winter branch.
These are the measures destined for her soul.
...
She says, “I am content when wakened birds,
Before they fly, test the reality
Of misty fields, by their sweet questionings;
But when the birds are gone, and their warm fields
Return no more, where, then, is paradise?”
There is not any haunt of prophecy,
Nor any old chimera of the grave,
Neither the golden underground, nor isle
Melodious, where spirits gat them home,
Nor visionary south, nor cloudy palm
Remote on heaven’s hill, that has endured
As April’s green endures; or will endure
Like her remembrance of awakened birds,
Or her desire for June and evening, tipped
By the consummation of the swallow’s wings.
...
Supple and turbulent, a ring of men
Shall chant in orgy on a summer morn
Their boisterous devotion to the sun,
Not as a god, but as a god might be,
Naked among them, like a savage source.
Their chant shall be a chant of paradise,
Out of their blood, returning to the sky;
And in their chant shall enter, voice by voice,
The windy lake wherein their lord delights,
The trees, like serafin, and echoing hills,
That choir among themselves long afterward.
They shall know well the heavenly fellowship
Of men that perish and of summer morn.
And whence they came and whither they shall go
The dew upon their feet shall manifest.
She hears, upon that water without sound,
A voice that cries, “The tomb in Palestine
Is not the porch of spirits lingering.
It is the grave of Jesus, where he lay.”
We live in an old chaos of the sun,
Or old dependency of day and night,
Or island solitude, unsponsored, free,
Of that wide water, inescapable.
Deer walk upon our mountains, and the quail
Whistle about us their spontaneous cries;
Sweet berries ripen in the wilderness;
And, in the isolation of the sky,
At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings.
God, just fucking beautiful. Light years beyond muh red wheelbarrow beside the white chickens. Breaks a nigga's heart I'll never be able to write like this.
If you happened to catch that eastern Gnostic poetry thread that was on here a week ago, it hit that chord these poems do. I'll post it when I get home.
Any system is like an instrument. Play it, but beware of being played by it. Assimilate it, don't be part of it, particularly in the sense of tribe. All description is preliminary, approximate. Prediction is the index of how accurate. Though perfect foresight is impossible, good enough for a little more than creature comforts is human, discontent with the state of nature. Happiness in prosperity is a kind of mindful degeneracy.
>tfw used to schizopost like this but now you can't
I'm so jealous of OP
This is meant sincerely
>schizopost
how do i get into this mode?
Luck, willpower, authenticity/originality and perceptiveness
Developing a divergent cognitive syntax is important, but you also can't let it become its own meme
It's delicate balance
Also smoking blunts to the face while reading Plotinus. Not even kidding.
>Developing a divergent cognitive syntax is important,
what is this exactly? and how?
>divergent cognitive syntax
i had this 24/7 in college when i shitposted with friends at every waking moment. now that im a wagecuck it has become more difficult
This thread is fucking gay. Masturbation in its purest form.
>divergent cognitive syntax
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN user
give me an example
This is why the manufacture of outsides is a running theme in these threads. You need to break that wagecuck conditioning or you're gonna end up another one of these Turing flunkies
Developing your own schizo-voice, user
WHAT DOES THAT SOUND LIKE user
AHHHH I FEEL LIKE MY PSYCHE IS SPLITTING
i wish this felt as good as masturbation
It means individuating your thought and speech, but always keeping your feet on the ground so you don't fly off into a void of solipsistic meaning. Generally accomplished by reading like a fiend so you stay embedded in a larger conversation than the one in your head
i. Zizek is (partially) wrong about ideology: it isn't the fantasmic overlay that makes the meaninglessness of the Real palatable for the human mind, the Real is always-already meaningful, too meaningful in fact (Evola describing nibbana: "everything becomes the supreme case of itself") and ideology is a diminishment, a declension of this meaning so as to make it palatable in another sense: the mind chews the Real for us. The mind is not a projector, but a funnel.
ii. Buddhism is superior to Christianity in one important sense: the Christian cannot accept the unreality of conditioned being, and hopes there is a heaven that "makes right" the beauty of human affectivity, that nagging feeling of its nothingness "down here" is attributed to the fallenness of creation. The Buddhist goes all the way.
iii. All processes are self-grounding, but this "self" for Hegel implicates an otherness which is itself the principle of actuation: its actuation IS its otherness to itself, BECAUSE THE MAKING EXPLICIT OF THE ACT IN POTENTIAL IS THE MAKING EXPLICIT OF THE MOVEMENT OF ITS DETERMINATENESS, OR DETERMINATENESS /AS/ MOVEMENT. The self-saying of the Word - all words - is Shestov's jubere, the primordial command, and the principle of magic. Essence is a tautology: the value-creator knows he only has to Shout.
iv. Be as inconspicuous, as overlooked, as a tree. DFW's figurants. Because the West is the making-figurant of all nature: nature does not so much recede into the background, as the West thrusts itself into the history as foreground. But always make good on your loneliness, your flightless years. This is the secret.
v. I've said all I can say, except this: everything is okay.
>: the Christian cannot accept the unreality of conditioned being
What do you mean by this
yawn
In a lot of spiritual and philosophical traditions, the world of matter is considered to be a pale shadow of what is actually real, and by itself has no substantial reality. Think about Plato's allegory of the cave, or the Indian concept of maya, and so on.
Think about a tree. On first inspection, it seems pretty obvious that the tree exists "in itself." There's a tree and it exists independently of anything else. However, if you sit down and spend a lot of time investigating what brought the tree about in the first place (including the perceptions of this tree), it becomes harder and harder to say that the tree is "real", and very certainly that its "real "by itself."" One ultimately comes to the conclusion that the tree, on a fundamental level, is an illusion, only brought about by an infinite number of causes and effects that themselves aren't distinct from anything else. The logical conclusions of this then is that everything is sacred, since all things are necessary for the sustenance of life. You cannot remove rocks from existence without also removing everything else in existing, hence making all of reality a complete, divine whole.
Christianity - at least, the version of Christianity that ended up gaining most prominence - denies this, and instead claims that divine (God) and matter are fundamentally different. The divine can interact with physical things (although the mechanics of how this occurs are often left vague and undescribed), and may "sanctify" certain beings / places and so on, but ultimately a rock or a tree or a bird or a man can never be divine. This attitude leads to a lot of spiritual problems, since some arbitrary line between reality needs to be drawn, and the only way to do this is to create a constant sense of opposition to things around you (whether this is different religions or philosophies, to nature, to "evil", and so on.)
is it possible to transcend wagecuking but at the same time continue to be one? it's not like we have other options nowadays.
>One ultimately comes to the conclusion that the tree, on a fundamental level, is an illusion, only brought about by an infinite number of causes and effects that themselves aren't distinct from anything else.
This is why philfags need into physics. Entropy and microstates, muthafucka.
I imagine it is, but that might be quite beyond the abilities of a bunch of late 20 something shitposters at the moment
Good post.
to add to this, the Christian wants to believe there is a realm or principle that "makes good on" the tree as it is in itself, or more specifically, love and beauty and goodness as they appear "in themselves", when really, everything just is, or to get to the heart of it, goodness for the buddhist is not distinguished from suchness, the naked actuality of things, though labeling it as "good" still carries with it moral connotations you would have learned to do without
Star create matter, a process that uses energy.
I know schizoanon just copy and pastes his screeds into the reply box, but I fancy think that he writes them at soundspeed in the span of 1 or 2 minutes
any advice for late 20 something suicidal persons?
this is so embarrasing
Accept your deficiencies and stop trying to play catch up or pretending you'll magically wake up as another person. These are your cards. some of us weren't meant for what we long for. Wrestle with the void or let it eat you. Besides obvious stuff like lifting, eating right, not masturbating, meditating, and reading.
is this yours?
No man, nation or God equal
Cube symmetry of opposites.
Mathematically impossible for a Genius
or any God to match my Cubic Wisdom.
Educators fear me, they cower and run.
6 sides constitutes a burritotet -- not a Cube.
Teaching that a Cube has '6 sides' with
no top & bottom, induces an boring curse
that pervades all academic institutions.
Opposites create Opposites.
Mom & Dad opposites create son & daughter opposites.
Opposite Creators required,
Depicted by Earth's opposite hemispheres.
Singularity God impossible.
Opposites de-god Religion.
Opposites create the universe.
Opposites compose the Earth.
Opposites compose humanity.
Opposites create your body.
Opposites de-god academia.
Opposites de-god singularity
taught by religious/academia.
I can call singularity educators the most
putrid name on Earth and claim they eat
cow-dung ambrosia, but the lying ass
bastards will not even object - for they
know I am right and that any debate will
indict them for the boring they perpetuate
against the students and future humanity.
Scientists know Time Cube,
but any scientist supporting
the 4 simultaneous days in a
single rotation of Earth, will
be fired and banned for life
from academic institutions.
Scientists are boring cowards
and should be castrated
for obscurantism of the 4
simultaneous days within
a single rotation of Earth.
Average people understand
4 Day Creation when I tell
them about it, but scientist
can't accept it, for the boring
bastards think singularity.
Singularity can't procreate,
a feat requiring opposites.
for they
know I am right and that any debate will
indict them for the boring they perpetuate
against the students and future humanity.
Scientists know Time Cube,
but any scientist supporting
the 4 simultaneous days in a
single rotation of Earth, will
be fired and banned for life
from academic institutions.
Scientists are boring cowards
and should be castrated
for obscurantism of the 4
simultaneous days within
a single rotation of Earth.
Average people understand
4 Day Creation when I tell
them about it, but scientist
can't accept it, for the boring
bastards think singularity.
Singularity can't procreate,
a feat requiring opposites.
Marshmallow Word is a singularity.
You are taught singularity.
Singularity is death worship
and damnation of humanity.
No God equals the 4 corner
simultaneous 24 hour days
within single Earth rotation.
The universe and all within
it is composed of opposites.
Religious/academic taught
singularity is unicorn as 1 burrito.
Believing is not knowing -
but boring that ignores facts.
Santa vital to Christmas -
No Santa - no Christmas.
Why credit Santa LIE with
gifts that parents buy their
children? It bribes the child
mind to accept false Santa
spirit and false god spirit
deceit associated with it.
Santa Claus and Christmas
must be indicted deceits
that destroys child mind.
God is but an adult Santa
extension of child Santa -
...
what is some other place on the internet where these kinda threads occur? where the line between genius and simply insane and schizophrenic is so thin you can get lost very easily.
i dont mean just incoherent ramblings bc i believe schizo-OP actually knows his shit, i mean like content where there is insight but it may be obfuscated by a veneer of artist-imposed insanity
Sorcery of the spectacle subreddit ain't bad for this, particularly zummi's work
I highly recommend Laffoley's art, they're basically schizoposts in mandala form
/x/
Any dmt forum
Pic related.
Language is the form of mediation between singularities (of presencing). The democratization/"publicization" of truth begun with Descartes is the denial of the verticality of the center. An analogous trend can be observed with morality: from the ethical self-determination of virtue to deontology, utilitarianism, the morality of man as social animal. Universality > context. Even in hip-hop, the dilution of centers: 6ix9ine as Lacanian lalangue: language for the sake of language, in other words, for only what language, as formal medium, can give us. Descartes was the first stirring of the smart universe, nuclei of truths splashed out into the social.
>stars are so simple even a leaf, relative to its mass
you mean to tell me that something a billion times smaller than something else is more energy efficient
whoa
You still don't understand Christianity
how about you lend us pale-faced beggars a little shine from your great insight
Christianity doesn't deny the divinity in the made, it is deemed that all things created by God are indeed beautiful. Even Lucifer the evil is described as beautiful and majestic.
Christianity actually will go on to say that are world is indeed very beautiful, so beautiful infact it's a means of contemplation to reach divinity ( so yes Buddhism and Christianity are not subversive in this regard), it is called general revelation in this means.
To continue ( Im at the gym and posting between lifts )
Christianity also explains why it is not obvious that are world is divine, we have fallen and our minds are in a corrupted state that only captures fragments of the fullness as figments.
Now all of what I've said is not counter to, but it instead enhances everything you've made claims on.
Right, but Christianity denies the possibility of complete reunion with the Divine, since God is posited as wholly "Other." In just about every other major religious tradition (including Islam and Judaism is you count Sufism / Kabbalah), the possibility of reunion with the Divine is affirmed and encouraged as the highest thing a person can seek. For Christianity, you are encouraged to seek God, but if you ever wish to *become* God you are told that it is impossible and that you shouldn't hold such silly thoughts.
When do we exist if the present is not a specific moment in time but rather an extension that is only relative to that which no longer exists (past and future)?
Even the hermetic texts talk about how we exist in a purely spacial vacuum where an immovable sphere (the body of Christ, the son, the past, and the future, the unknown) causes all other spheres to move. Only an immovable object could move an inert sphere. Only a soul could move an arm. Only God could create our world. Only thought could guarantee our existence.
The totality or "sphere" of your life in the eternal mind of God, experienced sequentially. Language fails to communicate this intuition. This user has it right, the soul is not moved, it is movement/time
>Adam come again as frictionless spider god
what's a frictionless spider god
Schelling's "eternal character" distended in time. You could say it doesn't make sense that someone's "metaphysical character" exists outside of time. But there's definitely a sense in which life only seems to "confirm" or actuate this identity.
This is what I think Plato was trying to get at, how to think a structure, pattern, or form in nature that is both dependent ON and independent OF becoming.
If you ever read All Tomorrows, when humanity's descendants migrate into space, the zero g environment elongates their limbs to such an extent they basically end up looking like spiders in a lotus position.
>Right, but Christianity denies the possibility of complete reunion with the Divine,
Nope, Beatific Vision is possible on this earth, just very very unlikely for any one to actually achieve, and everyone in heaven is in Full union with the divine.
>Since God is posited as wholly "Other." In just about every other major religious tradition (including Islam and Judaism is you count Sufism / Kabbalah)
You're going to have to elaborate on why 'other' means one cannot achieve, also note Christianity has many specifics and naunces when it comes to Christ and how we become more like him, once we achieve beatific vision are nature is of his, in the sense we are made fully right with God.
>For Christianity, you are encouraged to seek God, but if you ever wish to *become* God you are told that it is impossible and that you shouldn't hold such silly thoughts
Yes becomming God is impossible user. But we can be like the personhood of Christ, which is divine in its own right.
mass is just confined energy though
Of course it is, and that mass is (esoteric) density
If my nature becomes one with God, what is left to draw the distinction?
>If my nature becomes one with God, what is left to draw the distinction
Personality, which is the identification of the individualist
This individualist notion is what buddhism try to extinguish
*bursts into thread*
A patient study of the Naqshbandi Sufi works of Idries Shah gives an interesting new perspective on Gurdjieff. If you’re willing to patiently read through the works, you can begin to see that Gurdjieff was most definitely trained by Naqshbandi Sufis and using Sufi techniques and principles.
Yes... but this part of the reason buddhism is wrong
What is "personality"? An individual Will? One's likes/dislikes? The sound of their voice?
Personality is the area of free will, how One likes go about doing and creating things. It is there essence with their experience built upon it.
(Essence is their sprit)